Who Are Case Notes and Assessments Really Written For?
Youth justice records have traditionally been written by professionals, for professionals. Assessments, case notes and reports communicate information to managers, courts, panels, inspectors and partner agencies. They record decisions, evidence professional judgement and, when necessary, explain how concerns about safety or harm are being managed.
Child First practice challenges this convention. If assessment is something undertaken with a child rather than about them, should the resulting record also be written to the child?
This answer matters. The language used in records does more than describe a child. It can shape how that child is understood by every professional who encounters them afterwards.
The case for writing to the child
Children have the same rights as adults to access their personal information. The Information Commissioner’s Office states that information about the use of children’s data should be communicated in clear, plain and accessible language. A practitioner should therefore write on the assumption that the child may one day read what has been recorded.
This is not only a data protection issue. It is also a question of fairness and respectful practice.
Consider the difference between these two case notes:
Jayden failed to engage and displayed a dismissive attitude towards the intervention.
And:
Jayden said he did not want to complete the activity today. He explained that he was tired after being awake for much of the night. We agreed to return to it next week.
The first converts an event into a judgement about the child. The second records what happened, includes the child’s explanation and leaves room for the situation to change. It is more transparent, but it is also more professionally useful.
Writing with the child in mind can discourage vague labels such as “manipulative”, “unmotivated”, “lacks remorse” or “non-compliant”. It requires the practitioner to distinguish what they observed, what the child said, what another person reported and what professional conclusion has been reached.
It also makes it harder for assumptions to become established as facts. Once a judgement enters a case record, it is often repeated in later assessments. With every repetition, its original context becomes less visible and its apparent authority grows.
But professional records still need professional analysis
The solution is not simply to turn every assessment into a letter addressed to the child.
Youth justice records have important professional functions. They must support decisions about safeguarding, public protection, intervention planning and court outcomes. The Youth Justice Board states that assessment must go beyond description. Practitioners are expected to analyse the available information, connect their conclusions to evidence and present defensible judgements.
Some concerns cannot be reduced to reassuring or simplified language. A practitioner may need to record that a child presents a credible risk of serious harm, that accounts are inconsistent, or that information from another agency conflicts with what the child has said. Avoiding these conclusions because the child might find them upsetting would not be honest, safe or professionally responsible.
There is also a danger that direct-address writing becomes artificial:
You have made some positive choices, but we remain worried that you may make unsafe decisions when spending time with certain peers.
This may sound child-friendly, but it can obscure important questions. Who is worried? What decisions are considered unsafe? Which peers are relevant? What evidence supports the concern? How likely is the identified outcome?
Accessible language is not automatically precise language.
The purpose of professional analysis is not to sound technical. It is to explain how the practitioner has moved from information to interpretation and from interpretation to action. Plain English can support that task, but it cannot replace it.
Writing for two audiences
Perhaps the problem begins with the assumption that practitioners must choose one audience.
A strong assessment should be understandable to the child while remaining sufficiently precise for professional use. That does not mean every sentence must be written directly to the child. It means the record should be clear, respectful and transparent enough to discuss with them.
This can be achieved by separating different kinds of information:
What happened: the observable facts and relevant history.
What the child says: their account, views, wishes and explanation.
What others say: information supplied by family members, victims or professionals, with its source identified.
What the practitioner thinks: the professional analysis, including uncertainty and alternative explanations.
What happens next: the agreed actions, unresolved concerns and reasons for decisions.
This approach protects the child’s voice without presenting it as the only available account. It also makes clear where professional judgement has been applied.
For example:
Leon said carrying a knife made him feel safer following threats from other children. Police information indicates that he had also shown the knife to others on two occasions. My assessment is that Leon may understand the knife primarily as protection, while carrying it also increases the possibility of intimidation, escalation and serious injury. Work is needed to address both his experience of threat and the harm associated with carrying a weapon.
This is not written to Leon, but it could be read and discussed with him. It takes his explanation seriously without adopting it uncritically. It also states the practitioner’s conclusion and the evidence on which it is based.
Participation is more than changing pronouns
A record does not become participatory merely because “the child” is replaced with “you”.
The Youth Justice Board’s guidance says assessments should be jointly produced with children and shared for transparency. It also emphasises that children and their parents or carers should play an active role, including testing the practitioner’s understanding of their circumstances for accuracy. Meaningful participation therefore happens throughout the assessment process. It includes explaining why information is being gathered, asking how the child understands events, checking factual accuracy, discussing professional concerns and making disagreement visible.
A child does not have to agree with an assessment for their participation to be genuine. Where there is disagreement, the record should say so:
Mia does not agree with my assessment that contact with this group increases the likelihood of further offending. She believes the offending was an isolated decision and says these friendships are important to her. My concern remains because three recent incidents occurred while she was with members of the same group.
This preserves both perspectives. It neither silences the child nor disguises professional responsibility.
Records should not freeze children in time
Youth justice records follow children across services and sometimes into adulthood. Language written during one difficult period can continue to influence how others interpret their behaviour long after the circumstances have changed.
Practitioners should therefore be particularly cautious about statements that present behaviour as identity. “Has used aggression when feeling threatened” is different from “is an aggressive young person”. “Has not yet spoken about the impact on the victim” is different from “has no empathy”. “Did not attend two appointments” is different from “will not engage”. This is not about sanitising records. It is about ensuring that conclusions remain proportionate to the evidence and open to revision.
Assessment is supposed to be dynamic. The YJB describes it as an ongoing process that should develop as the practitioner gets to know the child and their circumstances change. The language of the record should allow for that development.
A better question
The choice is not whether we write to children or to professionals. The better question is whether we are producing records that are useful, defensible and fair to the person whose life they describe.
Before saving a case note or assessment, practitioners might ask:
Have I separated fact, reported information and professional interpretation?
Have I explained the evidence behind my conclusion?
Is the child’s perspective present, including where it differs from mine?
Have I described behaviour without turning it into identity?
Could I explain or read this wording to the child?
Will another professional understand both the concern and its context?
Have I recorded strengths, progress and change as carefully as difficulties?
A child-accessible record should not be a diluted professional record. Equally, professional analysis should not depend on inaccessible language, unexplained labels or judgements the practitioner would be unwilling to discuss with the child.
The strongest records can withstand both forms of scrutiny. They make sense to professionals, but they also remain recognisable, respectful and accountable to the child at the centre of them.
